[lit-ideas] Re: Wittgenstein's Punch Line
- From: "Walter C. Okshevsky" <wokshevs@xxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 14:06:49 -0330
Patient: Doctor, it hurts when I think postmodern.
Doctor: So don't think postmodern.
With apologies to you know who, Walter
Quoting Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx:
> Thanks to R. Paul for the further quote, this time from Monk.
>
> We are considering the claim (often ascribed to Black or other critic of
> the Tractatus) that the Tractatus "was" (or 'is' in historical present) a
> 'joke' played on Witters himself. The source seems to be Witters himself
> when
> he said that a whole book could be written which would 'consist of a
> succession of good jokes', implicating "and a punch line" and further
> implicating
> that the "Tractatus" could have been THAT book, since, after all, as a
> famous Irish lady once said, "Humour is essentially subjective" (she goes on
>
> to compare it with beauty in art, which this same lady thought to be 'in the
>
> eye of the beholder').
>
> In a message dated 2/21/2014 10:46:47 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> rpaul@xxxxxxxx provides an interesting quote from Monk:
>
> Monk quotes Wittesr:
>
> "'Humour is not a mood but a way of looking at the world"
>
> ---- This is interesting and may equivocate on 'mood'. In "Aspects of
> Reason", Grice was using 'mood' a lot -- as in 'the indicative mood'.
> Moravcsik,
> who was attending the lectures (at Stanford) said to Grice: "You shouldn't
> say 'mood'; the correct spelling is 'mode'". From then on, Grice started
> to write, 'indicative mode'.
>
> ---- Similarly, it is easy to rephrase Witter's claim to read:
>
> Humour is not a mode.
>
> But possibly he DID mean 'mood'. "Mood" is Anglo-Saxon (and thus Germanic,
> like Witters); mode is Latin. When Shirley Bassey sings,
>
> "I'm in the mood for love"
>
> it would be otiose to think that she is in the indicative mode for loving.
>
> ---
>
> People are said to be 'moody', but not mody (but cfr. modest).
>
> --- Negation always implicates the contrary (cfr. Emma Watson, "I'm NOT in
> love -- and I have NOT got a current boy friend!"). Therefore, appying this
> to Witters, we get:
>
> Humour is a mood.
>
> I.e. Witters is 'playing' with the claim that someone ("or other" as Geary
> would add) once said (or even worse, WROTE) that humour was a mood.
>
> Now, the positive aspect comes later, as usual:
>
> "but a way of looking at the world".
>
> Note that the force of the statement (as per illocutionary force) is
> brought by the opposition. The statement,
>
> "Humour is a way of looking at the world"
>
> would not travel too far as a memorable quote: "Humour is NOT a mood; but a
> way of looking at the world" does. It has a Heideggerian resonance:
> 'being-in-the-world' and 'looking'.
>
> Monk goes on:
>
> "[he] wrote while he was in Rosro [Norway]"
>
> and this was possibly motivated by some chat at a Norwegian wood pub or
> other. There IS such a thing as Norwegian humour.
>
> Note that the specification felt important by Monk ("This was a Rosro
> thought by Witters") invites us to qualify the dictum to read:
>
> "Norwegian humour is not a mood; it's a Norwegian way of looking at the
> Norwegian world".
>
> ------ Any Norwegians on the list?
>
> ------
>
> Monk goes on:
>
> 'So if it is correct to say that humour was stamped out in Nazi Germany,
> that does not mean that people were not in good spirits, or anything of
> that sort, but something much deeper and more important.'"
>
> ----- I would add "Austria", since after all Nazi Germany originated in
> Austria, no? (Witters's homeland).
>
> Monk stops quoting and provides an editorial:
>
> "To understand what that 'something' is it would perhaps be instructive to
> look at humour as something strange and incomprehensible."
>
> Or not, of course.
>
> Here I would refer to McEvoy's commentary, since 'good spirits' are brought
> in. "Spirit", like "mood", can be ambiguous. Literally, a spirit is a
> ghost (as in the holy ghost, as referred to by Adriano Palma in his
> contribution to this thread). Ghosts can be evil or other. When 'other',
> they are
> called 'a good spirit', and often pluralised ("There were three good spirits
> in
> the haunted mansion").
>
> ----- Now, to BE in a good spirit is assumed by Witters (or Monk) to be
> more or less equivalent as to be 'in a humorous mood'.
>
> The idea that humour is a good, I claim, has to be traced to the Greek
> theory of the HUMOURS (vide Wikipedia, -- Galen Strawson should know about
> this).
>
> Monk writes that it is INSTRUCTIVE (his word) to regard humour as
> 'incomprehensible' (and 'strange' or odd, since strangers or foreigners do
> have a
> mood of humour -- the phrase 'sense of humour' is restrictive, since there
> are usually two senses -- or four at most -- the the right, to the left, up,
>
> and down). But surely a teacher should be reprimanded if, when lecturing,
> he would utter the phrase:
>
> "It is instructive to regard Sanskrit mythology as incomprehensible".
>
> The fact that the teacher does not comprehend should not IMPLICATE that
> nobody can!
>
> Or not. I'm sure Attalardo, the great Griceian humorist CAN (if Witters
> Kant).
>
> Cheers
>
> Speranza
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
